yet another glaring example of how the parties are different

today, Democrats voted 57-0 to pass a bill to require candidates to disclose their donors.

The Republicans voted 41-0 to block it.

This legislation was crafted in response to the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling back in January.

Still want to make the argument that there's no difference between the parties?

Does it get any clearer than one party voting unanimously for restricting corporate influence on elections and the other party voting unanimous AGAINST?

Anyone want to make the Nader "tweedledum and tweedledee" argument here?

Anyone?

The bottom line is that there is a DRASTIC and clear difference between the parties.

It shows itself in vote after vote after vote.

There isnt a single Republican senator that cares about corporate influence on elections. Not one. Proven today.

Cool beans man. K&R!

sure, we'll see the odd differences, but how about that war vote today?

Do you know how politics works?

Dem Whip does head count. Rep Whip does head count. Leadership from both sides looks at counts. Yay! Everybody can vote along party lines and it doesn't pass! Reps go back to their constituents and say they voted on behalf of their constituents against the evil Democrats; Democrats do the same.

Does this sound cynical? Welcome to the game known as politics. The wheeling and dealing would make your head spin. I'll vote for this and you vote for that then I'll vote against that while you vote against this. Then we'll both go home during the break and decry the evil of the other and parade our voting scores.

Votes are decided in back rooms before they ever make it to the floor for public consumption. Yeah, leadership from both sides get together and plan. Love it? Hate it? Doesn't matter. That is how the game is played.

even some rethugs had consciences and voted in the best interests of, you know, their constituents, at least occasionally.

That doesn't happen anymore, and that's how they're playing their warped game.

That was back in a time when statesmanship was valued over politics. Now it's "dog eat dog" and "he who has the gold rules" and other fun and anti-people "common knowledge."

We have de-volved as far as I'm concerned. Politics is not any "meaner" than it was, but the outcomes frequently are and many are just fine with that. It's also true that the system has been well and truly gamed.

Our "collective" priorities...suck. Not very articulate but hopefully clear.

the systems that are so corrupt and twisted. All of the systems.

There was an editorial "cartoon" I once found online (which I can no longer find), in which the the author showed the class pyramid with the caption: "With whom do the politicians have more in common?"

Obama is of the upper class and protects the upper class values. I only wish that he would live more out of his original roots and experience as a community organizer, but I guess that's sometimes what happens...

you either sell out, get out, or get thrown out.

The current system allows no altruistic ideals. None.

A very good friend of mine was run out of the state senate using the anti-American rhetoric once used against Jews in Germany. Would it surprise you to know that she is Jewish and extremely progressive and a feminist? Yeah. They used every "enemy of the state" dog whistle against her when she was running for re-election. What they couldn't twist and spin, they just made up. Her opponent who won, would eventually be prosecuted for "misappropriation of government funds" followed by being murdered (allegedly) by her husband. The good old "Family Values" crowd.

That is how our current system works.

And, you're welcome. Sometimes images can carry a more substantial message.

...only the motivation behind it?


Bullshit.


How about this example: Unemployment Extension.... Democrats 58-1 for... Republicans 39-2 against.

That PASSED.


Does THAT demonstrate the difference between the parties?

Until that time, I'd very much appreciate you not presuming to know what is in my mind.

I posted what I know of how politics works based on my experience in actually working in politics. If that bothers you, tough.

You will notice we were talking about war funding and not about UI benefits. Yes, there really is a difference -in motivation- and PR, between those two votes.

My point, and you've said nothing that invalidates it so far, is that the two parties are VERY different on many things.

Almost every vote is nearly unanimous Democrats for, and nearly unanimous Republicans against. Almost EVERY vote.


That shows a clear demarcation line of how the two parties have VERY different priorities.


The priorities of this Democratically-controlled congress have been more in line with the "left" than the priorities of the GOP minority.


Anybody who says "there's no difference between the parties" is holding an opinion that is *NOT* supported by facts.


If you're in that group, then that includes you. If you're not, then don't go hijacking threads to talk about your pet issues that have nothing to do with the thread.

My statement stands regardless: there is a difference between motivation and PR from vote to vote; campaign funding is one of those that reaches across party lines. (War funding, too, but I truly didn't mean to hijack on a "pet issue" such as the horrors of war. Did you just really say war is a "pet issue"? Really?)

Regardless, yes, the motivation behind each vote is specific to each vote and my original reply to your OP still stands. Like it or not; the two parties do whip counts then compare notes then proceed to the floor together knowing the outcome before you and I view it on C-SPAN.

There is a difference between how parties are marketed; between the politicians? Not quite so much.

Had you actually worked within the political system (based on your OP I doubt you actually have; my crystal ball versus your crystal ball, don'tchaknow?) you would be fully aware of that.

Sorry, didn't mean to harsh your reality.

The Dems PASSED the unemployment extension. While you argue about WHY they did it ... the fact remains that they did do it.

Do you think that the GOP, under any circumstances would take up DADT? Would they discuss ending it .. even put it on the table? never.

Stem cell funding? never.

Over the last decade, any effort to reduce corporate money in elections came from the Dems, with a few GOP at best. still true now.

One area where you might compare them is on the horse trading that goes on ... but let's look at other procedural aspects, like the filibuster, the GOP owns the record for that ... they set it under Clinton, and then exploded it under Obama. Dems do not come close.

If the two parties are "basically the same" ... then you are on the wrong web site. You should be on a 3rd party web site. I mean, why go to a "Democratic Underground" site is it might as well be called "Republican Underground".

I don't think you would be here if you thought the parties were "the same".

the history of the "Party" since my first day on DU. I haven't changed about that. I've been trying to let people know that politics is...nothing personal, or ideological, for that matter.

Secondly; if you think the repubs will never support xyz legislation, I suggest you go read more political history. Repubs will do what gets them elected based on what the polls say; as will Democrats. nixon, fer cryin' out loud, signed into law many laws which we would now define as progressive; as did Eisenhower; both repubs.

They may gild different lilies from the Democrats at first, but eventually, they will gild "our" lilies as well.

And please, don't pull that "you're with us or against us" crap on me. You want a loyalty oath, go visit the repubs.

Politics is a game to the "leaders" who play it. If that bothers you, perhaps you should leave the politics to the game players.

BTW, I didn't say the parties were the same; I said the marketing is different for each party but that the politicians are similar.

I absolutely agree that politics is a game. I play it, and see it played, in a corporate environment, and its no less dirty there.

Those who "play" know that there are positive and negative aspects to the game. On the negative side, political games can be used strictly for personal gain ... I win, and you lose, and that is the sum total of the motivation. However, you can also play the game to win because you believe a certain outcome is the right one. In that case, it is not about me or you ... it is about me trying to leverage the politics to achieve an outcome I truly believe is the right one.

In a corporate environment, even if you never play the game with the first intent, you MUST remain aware that others may be playing by those rules. If you don't, you can have the best idea ever, and you still get destroyed. So it is necessary to be able to "count the votes" and know WHY the vote count is what it is.

Now ... while this is an interesting historical and academic discussion, and we could discuss how the country has moved to the right since Nixon (he did many non-progressive things too you know), I would ask you to consider the 2 approaches to "the game" I describe above given TODAY's political climate.

Does the GOP today, play politics because they believe that their positions are better, or, are they playing politics for the "I win, you lose" motivation. You seem to be claiming that both sides play for the "I win, you lose" motivation currently. And I'd argue that. The GOP in this congress has set a record for filibusters ... and not just a simple record, they crushed the old record, a record they set under who, Bill Clinton.

During these filibusters, GOP members are voting against provisions and bills they WROTE ... while folks on the left call Obama a corporatist, the right calls him a socialist.

When I think about the GOP, I try to find one piece of legislation that they passed in the last 10 years that was "good" for the average American. I can't find many. My sense is that the imperfect Dems have passed more legislation that helps the average American in the last 2 years than the GOP did during its 6 years of total control.

was the noun. I came here for the underground. I stayed because I made friends here and because I could talk and debate and fine-tune my debating skills. That hasn't changed...well, kinda it has but I'm still here "fighting." I don't buy the "you can't fight city hall" crap frequently presented as "that's just the way it is" and "deal with it" garbage.

My loyalty was not questioned when * was in office; why do you think it's okay to do so now?

The politics you see played in a corporate environment is ugly; the politics played in the political environment is deadly. There is a difference.

When war is declared or continued due to political reasons; people die. "Our" people, "their" people...people.

When money is cut to social safety nets for political reasons; people die. "Our" people, "their" people...people.

When each party votes to continue supporting the current un-sane and deadly system, people die. That is the end result of maintaining power over others while sitting for photo-ops and advertising voting records.

Unless you are talking about multi-national corporations, please do not conflate corporate politics with our current political system. The outcomes are much deadlier in one than in the other; though they can combine to be the same under certain circumstances. I.e., Halliburton as but one example.

It's very intertwined and very un-sane and very deadly; that is our political system in a nutshell.

That is, and has been, my message since I arrived here.

Too bad it's not a game for the American people as well...

What is but numbers and polls and graphs and charts and figures and percentages and election results for the players, is life or death; or comfortable and healthy life and death for the American people, is but a game for those who would play it.

defeat our 57 votes!

Until the current crop of eunuchs rose to power, the majority ruled. Filibusters were rare, painful and almost always, lost causes which only served to delay the will of the majority. Now, Big Bad Mitch hisses "filibuster" and Reid and company fill their Depends and apologize.

This has to stop.

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

....but the filibuster rules have been in place for decades.

To change them, we need 67 votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Do it; let them whine and call you names, then say you're glad you did it and move on to the business of governing.

Well said!

I see the bill passing......... if not why??

Think we can get 8 Republicans to agree to changing the filibuster rules in the Senate?

it would be nice to see them have to talk for hours, force their hand

Even the most basic critical thinking would make one draw this conclusion unless one has another agenda or likes to throw their peas on the floor whilst sitting in their highchair..

:thumbsup:

But I'm beginning to wonder why you keep trying. They don't get the sausage making process apparently.

Based on your personal experience; please explain how the "sausage making process" in politics works.

Please...enlighten us.

you hear both sides; try your best to keep an open mind and straight face while everything inside you wants to scream FY to all the crows in Armanis who bombard you constantly as you nearly run to get the F away from them and the media so you can piece togethor the reams of info and 35 pink call back slips from the past 1/2 hour.

And then the real work begins. Conjoling, Reminding others of a previous favors, and compromise....

This is how it happens:

1) Be an "influential" person or group. "Influential" translates as representative of money or warm bodies, aka voters. Money and warm bodies is the best but some reps will settle for one or the other.

2) Make an appointment with said rep or reps (this applies to Senate but I'm using representative in the "old" definition of politicians who represent their constituency).

3) If an appointment can be acquired; based on money or bodies or both; sit down with said rep and present them with an already written bill. The bill is written by your legislative guru to fit the font specs and formating specs and legislative mumbo jumbo.

4) If you are "influential" enough, said rep may submit your pre-formatted bill to the calendar.

4a) Make sure to meet all the deadlines in timing.

5) Depending on your "influence," meet with individual or party leadership reps and sell them on your bill.

6) Begin the "horse trading."

It kinda goes down hill from there but perhaps you get the idea.

Some of the things you'll address: be prepared to, or for your group to, stand down on some issues and step up to some other issues; hold your nose if necessary; think of "the empire" if that helps. You're now about to sell your ideals in order to obtain a vote...maybe.

Reps have a funny habit of securing your vote on their "pet issues", then turning around and saying, "Gee, sorry, couldn't vote for your issue or I wouldn't get re-elected. The vote was 'too close'."

Yep. That actually happens. You make a deal. They renege on said deal. Whatcha gonna do? Who else ya gonna vote for?

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

"Both sides"?! Really? You think they listen to both sides?

and I'd be embarrassed after 3 terms as State Rep. in the Maine State Legislature to say I DIDN'T know how it happens...

But you apparently don't... either that your state is VERY different then mine.

you learned.

Perhaps your state is different than mine. At the federal level it's very similar to my state and how it operates. I've worked at the state and the national level.

My guess is you are no longer a state rep. I am not surprised. You have my condolences.

Good Night :boring:

so the Democrats are hoping to add some transparency in order to have something to point to in future elections...

This vote does not show anything about differences in the policies of the two major parties.

This isn't a vote to curtail corporate contributions. This is just a vote to try to gain a lever by which Democrats could gain leverage for campaigns themed on "I haven't been bought by corporations"... just like Obama ran on that theme in '08.

No one has argued that there is no difference in the themes upon which Democrats and Republicans run their election campaigns. It has only been argued that they don't behave terribly differently once they are in office. A vote regarding election processes is not really demonstrative of differences in policy, it is only demonstrative of differences in campaigning styles and themes.

miss Bush.

As long as they are allowed to have primarily corporate donors influence their policies. 'Cause the individual donors sure as hell don't influence them.

The vote is a point of "make one disclose their corruption publicly" versus allowing corruption to go on behind closed doors. It is still allowed to continue without real, meaningful campaign finance reform.

Perhaps a better title would be, "Yet another glaring example of how both parties are interested in the status quo above all, while attempting to appease their bases by doing meaningless things." But that's a bit long-winded.

:kick: